Well Julie, Jeffort mentioned to me in a conversation once that he refered tutoring students in socal to Lindbergh, so that's enough cred for me. And, Lindbergh, Julie can communicate normally. She did so in a thread a few weeks ago. Can we concentrate on flaming the noobs instead of each other? Thanks.

As always, HTH. What does it say about a thread where just some guy has to be the voice of reason?

I'd be perfectly happy if Julie would stop flaming LSAT related threads, and allow people to actually try to help the OP's without contantly/desperately seeking attention for herself. We'll see how that works out.

if you think attention julie's thing, then stop giving it julie.

This may be the best advice you've ever given. We should all probably try ignoring you for a while.

go for it, forrest. maybe that free upsome time for you locate those norming data. (and julie appreciate how their very mention so painful for you.)

1. You're the one that claims such data exists. Therefore, it is clearly your responsibility to produce it if you feel it supports your claim.

julie's more important "responsibility" show world how little you know about lsat. julie also enjoy shopwing world that you apparebntly have no clue where find these data, which--julie assure you--exist.

instead admitting wrong and doing some research, you whining at julie.

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

really, "definitely"? even if it fourth passage, which have almost all difficult questions?

You're going to have to read them all if you want a good score. Take 'em as they come.

Not necessarily. Most people would probably define "good score" as anything above 160. You could certainly break 160 (or even perhaps 170) while guessing on an RC passage, and/or a game. (You could theoretically guess on 25 questions and get a 160, as long as you nailed the remainder.) For many students, guessing in this manner is the best approach. (It doesn't matter how many questions you hit, it only matters how many you get right, and for some students, they'll maximize their score by spending more time on a smaller percentage of questions. That smaller percentage, of course, should be the easier questions.)

In my opinion, even those shooting for 170+ should work easiest to hardest, as it allows them to warm up for the section, build up momentum, and rack up points more quickly.

passages already arranged order difficulty.

discussion over.

Um, no.

For one thing, the difficulty level in RC is generally tied to how interesting the subject matter is for the reader, which is of course inherently subjective.

you just wrong, making it up as go along. all passages better be interesting if you take test seriously. you just misleading people.

but just for fun: what your other alleged "things"?

Given your linguistic skills, I doubt you've ever taken the LSAT. But in my experience, most students find different passages difficult depending on the subject matter, and their personal interest in the subject matter. There's no question that personal interest makes a passage easier to focus on and comprehend, and that personal interest is inherently subjective. (Bio majors will like sciences passage more, etc.)

Not all passages are in fact interesting. You obviously need to focus as much as possible on each passage if you want to do well, but you should also do them in order of personal difficulty, to maximize your points and work most efficiently.

I've never heard anyone claim that RC is laid out in order of difficulty. The LSAT simply doesn't work like this, for the most part -- they prefer to make things as difficult as possible. That's why the easier games questions are usually among the last 3 or so, with the hardest among the first 3 or so. (That's the other thing.)

3. Do you really dispute that given students may find different passages more interesting, and therefore easier to comprehend?

this effect should be minimal, although julie not claim have data support this, as you seem claim.

any lsat-taker who not able be interested in any reading comp passage whatsoever just looking for excuse and already in deep, deep trouble. "oh, golly, i'm going skip this particularly easy first passage because it about literature, and that icky." puh-lease.

1. You first need to support your apparent belief that the 4th passage will always have "almost all" difficult questions. You may be correct, but we don't know this yet. If there's any variance whatsoever on this issue (or on the relative difficulty of the remaining passages), that calls your theory (that you should just steamroll through the section) into question.

oh, julie know. in fact, it look to be on order of 73% difficult questions in fourth passage.

you one in dark, preppie.

better give up and hope those tutoring clients you trying impress here forget about this little incident.

2. If you can do so, then the question becomes whether the likely greater ease in reading and understanding the passage (due to the subject matter) will offset any greater difficulty in the questions themselves. If you know the passage well enough, the difficulty level would presumably have to be substantially greater to offset the natural advantage gained by absorbiady said, wrong again.ng the material more quickly.

as already said, wrong again. to whatever extet this principle valid, it already be reflected in norming data, which simply measure how often test-takers, in aggregate, answer correctly.

so, julie gather this cornerstone of your reading comp "methodollogy." and how much you charge for this garbage?

you know nothing about julie, except she know more about lsat than you.

Sure you do, Julie! And someday, when you graduate from your special school, maybe you'll actually take one! (Untimed, of course.)

She's so special!!!

bluster not same as knowledge, as we all can see.

Yes, Julie, we can all see your bluster is completely baseless.

hey, preppy, tell us again about those norming data, eh?

oh, wait--you can't!

Have you linked to any alleged norming data yet, my geeky friend? I wasn't aware that you had.

Assuming such data exists, is it still your position that all testtakers find all questions equally difficult? And that there is no individual variance whatsoever in what kinds of questions, passages, and games different students struggle with?

Because if it is, I think you need to consider your position a little more thoughtfully. Or, you could just keep repeating the words "norming data" in a shrill tone, like an OCD parrot. Either way.